Op-Ed Contributor
‘Present’ Perfect
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/16/opinion/16mikva.html?ex=1360818000&en=9417ee6115534086&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss By ABNER J. MIKVA
Published: February 16, 2008
SENATOR HILLARY CLINTON should probably be forgiven for not remembering the course on the state Constitution that she would have had to take as an eighth grader in Illinois. But had she remembered it, she would have known that Senator Barack Obama was not ducking his responsibility in the Illinois Senate when he voted “present” on many issues.
Unlike Congress and the legislatures of most other states, each chamber of the Illinois Legislature requires a “constitutional majority” to pass a bill. The state Senate has 59 members, so it takes 30 affirmative votes. This makes a “present” vote the same as a no. If a bill receives 29 votes, but the rest of the senators vote “present,” it fails.In Congress, in contrast, a bill can pass in either the House or the Senate as long as more people vote for it than against it. If 10 people vote in favor and nine against, and the rest either vote “present” or don’t vote at all, the bill passes. It can actually pass with just one vote, as long as no one votes no.
In the Illinois Senate, there can be strategic reasons for voting “present” rather than simply no. A member might approve the intent of legislation, but not its scope or the way it has been drafted. A “present” vote can send a signal to a bill’s sponsors that the legislator might support an amended version. Voting “present” can also be a way to exercise fiscal restraint, without opposing the subject of the bill.
Even if Senator Clinton does not remember the constitutional majority requirement in Illinois, one of her advisers might have explained it to her. When I was White House counsel, President Clinton frequently reminded me that he had taught constitutional law before he ran for public office. I would hope that he would assume that another constitutional scholar — Barack Obama — would be aware of his voting responsibilities as a state legislator.http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/16/opinion/16mikva.html?ex=1360818000&en=9417ee6115534086&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rssFriday, January 25, 2008
'Present' votes defended by Ill. lawmakers
By Daniel C. Vock
http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=274863In most legislatures, lawmakers vote either “yes” or “no” on bills, but in Illinois, senators and representatives can hit a third button for a “present” vote. Now that quirk — not unique to Illinois — has sparked heated exchanges among Democrats vying for president.
The two main rivals of Illinois’ U.S. Sen. Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination accused him during a debate Monday (Jan. 21) of ducking important votes by voting “present” about 130 times during his eight years in the Illinois Senate.
But Obama’s former colleagues who still serve in the Illinois Capitol say that the attacks are off-base and that either Obama’s opponents don’t understand how things work in Springfield or they are deliberately distorting his record. ------------------------------------------------------------
The “present” vote in Illinois is sometimes cast by state lawmakers with a conflict of interest who would rather not weigh in on an issue. Other times, members use the option to object to certain parts of a bill, even though they may agree with its overall purpose.
----------------------------------------------------
In Illinois, the “present” vote works as a vote against a measure during final action.
State Sen. John Cullerton (D) calls the “present” vote “a no vote with an explanation.” Legally, there’s not much difference between the two votes, but practically, it can let the sponsors or other legislators know of problems with the bill that should be corrected. ------------------------------------
Fritchey, the House Democrat who chairs a committee on civil law, said he often used the “present” vote when he thought a bill had constitutional or other legal problems.
That’s also the reason Obama, who taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago, gave during the debate for voting “present” on a bill he originally had sponsored.
“After I had sponsored it and helped to get it passed, it turned out that there was a legal provision in it that was problematic and needed to be fixed so that it wouldn’t be struck down,” he said.
Sometimes using “present” votes is part of a larger strategy.
For example, in what was supposed to be the last night of the legislative session in 2002, the leader of the Senate Democrats said he had been double-crossed on a budget agreement when a major new revenue source was left out. His caucus didn’t have enough votes to stop the whole revenue package, which included cigarette tax hikes, and the Democrats agreed to most of the bill anyway.
“I’m going to recommend to the members of this side of the aisle to vote ‘present’ until such a time as we see a total package that’s going to balance the budget for the year 2003,” state Sen. Emil Jones Jr. (D) told his caucus.
All told, 22 Democrats voted “present,” and the Republicans passed the measure. Obama was one of “present” votes, even though he earlier touted the cigarette tax hike at a press conference.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
